Attending the Flagstick

[GolfLug]

2 hours ago, Fourputt said:

Just one comment, the pro caddies don't bend the flagstick, or at least most don't.  They remove it from the socket and then rest it in the center of the cup and lean it back away from the ball.  Bending a fiberglass flagstick even a little bit does irreparable damage to it at the bottom where it joins the plug.  A lot of courses have metal flagsticks which have no flexibility at all.

I guess I was under the wrong impression. Still think lot of them seem to be bending awfully more than not at all. I don't know how you ensure it rest in the center if not in the socket? Appx? Also I guess these guys are good enough to ensure no lip damage.

On topic,I would NEVER refuse to tend. That would be real douchey IMO. But this 'hold the pin but don't let it bend' thing is interesting. Struck an off chord with me and in the least I thought was skirting fair play in spirit of the game. He also requests the pin to be tended a lot more than most would from the distances in the same ''no bend/lean' manner, which furthers my feel that he is using not just to locate the hole but actually alignment/level/plumb bobbing, whatever way.

I just wanted to check if it was clear violation (which it is not) and 'game' him back a bit by bending a tad anyway, since I run into him in our league a lot.

   

[MrFlipper]

4 hours ago, GolfLug said:

Thanks for the input all. Seem like not a rules violation on his part since I would agree that the normal condition of the pin is that is straight and upright (unless wind affecting it), so I guess ok for him to ASK for it since not ABNORMAL state. The object of the pin is to solely locate the tool and not act as a plumb bobbing aid, so I do think he is skirting the premise of 14.3 as @saevel25 posted. 

Now, since he is a competitor and I know that he is using the pin to plumb bob (he admitted to it), can I refuse to hold it straight and bend it a bit anyway to deny him the advantage? Is there anything in the rules that says I have to conform? He is a bit of dick and we aren't exactly best friends so I don't mind 'sticking' it to him . 

Gotta ask, how does one use the pin to plumb bob? That doesn't make any sense to me.

And fwiw I am a plumb bobber (so I have at least one screw loose anyway). 

Thanks.

[GolfLug]

21 minutes ago, MrFlipper said:

Gotta ask, how does one use the pin to plumb bob? That doesn't make any sense to me.

And fwiw I am a plumb bobber (so I have at least one screw loose anyway). 

Thanks.

Oh, IDK, I just threw that in amongst other, especially alignment . I am not a plumb bobber but I know it is used as a vertical level for judging slope which is done while reading the green and not while taking the stroke. So yeah, you can strike that off the list.  

I think using pin as a visual guide WHILE making the stroke is what I have a problem with. I bent/leaning pin can mess with that and conversely help if it is straight/upright, I think.

 

EDIT: I went back and read my previous posts and I did use the term 'plumb bobbing' few times. I shouldn't have. Should have said 'alignment rod'. Rest of the content of my posts ok.

[Golfingdad]

39 minutes ago, GolfLug said:

I think using pin as a visual guide WHILE making the stroke is what I have a problem with.

For what reason besides the above would somebody ask you to tend the flagstick?

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Golfingdad said:

Nobody.

Well, at least you've sidestepped the idea that the flag attender should be penalized, as that can be just about anyone, including a spectator.

If the rule were changed such that an attended flagstick could be struck with nobody receiving the penalty, then everyone who had a clue and the means to do so would just start having the flagstick attended on everything but the shortest of tap-ins. Because why not? There's only really upside to be gained - the ball is more likely to go in when the flagstick is there, and if nobody gets a penalty, then they'd just have the flagstick attended and hit it, increasing their putts made from three, five, eight feet…

P.S. I'm guilty of it sometimes, too, but it's "attended" and not "tended."

[Golfingdad]

12 minutes ago, iacas said:

Well, at least you've sidestepped the idea that the flag attender should be penalized, as that can be just about anyone, including a spectator.

If the rule were changed such that an attended flagstick could be struck with nobody receiving the penalty, then everyone who had a clue and the means to do so would just start having the flagstick attended on everything but the shortest of tap-ins. Because why not? There's only really upside to be gained - the ball is more likely to go in when the flagstick is there, and if nobody gets a penalty, then they'd just have the flagstick attended and hit it, increasing their putts made from three, five, eight feet…

P.S. I'm guilty of it sometimes, too, but it's "attended" and not "tended."

I only think the penalty seems silly when an opponent or FC is the one tending to the flag.

And I disagree on the second part.  Having the flag and the person standing there would be more of a distraction than anything on shorter putts, and it would be no help.  The only times I get the speed so wrong that a putt that's going to race over the top of the hole would fall in because of a flagstick being there are long putts where I'm probably needing it to see the hole anyway.

[Hardspoon]

5 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

I only think the penalty seems silly when an opponent or FC is the one tending to the flag. 

It does seem silly, but I can't think of another practical way to regulate potential abuse.

I suppose you could remove the related Exceptions in Rule 19, so that once you're attending the flag, it is the same as if you accidentally deflected another player's ball. But that still seems ripe for potential abuse since it is likely to end up in the hole.

I can't imagine screwing this up and costing a FC two strokes. 

[iacas]

12 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

I only think the penalty seems silly when an opponent or FC is the one tending to the flag.

What if the FC is out of the running and wants to help his friend win a major? How about the opponent's caddie, or an FC's caddie? We already see PGA Tour players leaving their ball in positions to help others from off the green… why wouldn't they just all attend the flagstick for those knee-knockers you'd love to ram in the hole?

12 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

And I disagree on the second part. Having the flag and the person standing there would be more of a distraction than anything on shorter putts, and it would be no help.

Then you're ignoring the fact that a ball is more likely to go in the hole with the flagstick in it. I'd love it if I could just bang in any putt inside of 5'… hitting it firm and "taking the break out of it."

12 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

The only times I get the speed so wrong that a putt that's going to race over the top of the hole would fall in because of a flagstick being there are long putts where I'm probably needing it to see the hole anyway.

Your rules change would change the whole dynamic. It's not about when you get the speed wrong now because you take the flagstick out on short putts, because you're otherwise likely going to incur a penalty for hitting it.

Eliminate the penalty and people will effectively leave the flagstick in.

[Phil McGleno]

2 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

I've known that was the case, and I have never seen it happen, and don't expect to ... but that is a really lame rule.

You sound like my kids when they were younger.-Man that math class is lame. I will never need to know how to figure out the area of a triangle! Or solve for an unknown!-Or whatever the topic was that month.

Maybe try giving the rules some thought before you just call them lame?-You will probably find that Most of them exist as they are for a very logical sound reason.

[drmevo]

Is there a reason they couldn't change the rule so that this situation hinges on intent?  Aren't there plenty of other rules and decisions that do?  Like saying, if the person attending the flag intends to remove it before the ball reaches the hole, but fails to do so, replay the shot at no penalty (or something)?

[iacas]

41 minutes ago, drmevo said:

Is there a reason they couldn't change the rule so that this situation hinges on intent?  Aren't there plenty of other rules and decisions that do?  Like saying, if the person attending the flag intends to remove it before the ball reaches the hole, but fails to do so, replay the shot at no penalty (or something)?

See 17-3/2.

[Phil McGleno]

12 minutes ago, Phil McGleno said:

Maybe try giving the rules some thought before you just call them lame?-You will probably find that Most of them exist as they are for a very logical sound reason.

They have been writing and modifying rules for a long long time-THey probably have given them a lot of thought. More than anyone will posting here, including me and you @drmevo.

[Golfingdad]

17 minutes ago, Hardspoon said:

It does seem silly, but I can't think of another practical way to regulate potential abuse.

Why not just tweak Decision 17-3/2 ever so slightly.  It currently reads:

Quote

17-3/2

 

Opponent or Fellow-Competitor Attending Flagstick for Player Fails to Remove It; Player's Ball Strikes Flagstick

Q.A's ball lies on the putting green. A requests B, his opponent or fellow-competitor, to attend the flagstick, and B complies. A putts and B fails to remove the flagstick. A's ball strikes the flagstick. What is the ruling?

A.If B failed to remove the flagstick for the purpose of causing A to incur a penalty, B is disqualified, in both match play and stroke play, under Rule 33-7 for taking an action contrary to the spirit of the game. In stroke play, in equity (Rule 1-4), A must replay the stroke without penalty.

If B's failure to remove the flagstick was with the intent to influence the movement of A's ball (e.g., for the purpose of preventing A's ball from going beyond the flagstick), B is in breach of Rule 1-2, and loses the hole in match play or incurs a two-stroke penalty in stroke play, whether the ball strikes the flagstick or not. In stroke play, if the ball struck the flagstick and as a result A suffered significant advantage or disadvantage, then the Committee could consider B to have committed a serious breach of Rule 1-2, the penalty for which is disqualification. Whether or not B has committed a serious breach of Rule 1-2, in stroke play, if A's ball struck the flagstick, in equity (Rule 1-4), A must replay the stroke without penalty - see Note 2 to Rule 1-2.

If B's failure to remove the flagstick was not deliberate (e.g., the flagstick stuck in the hole-liner or B was distracted and did not see A putt), since B was acting on A's behalf, A incurs a penalty of loss of hole in match play or two strokes in stroke play under Rule 17-3. A must play the ball as it lies. B incurs no penalty

Why not just revise the last paragraph to:

Quote

If B's failure to remove the flagstick was not deliberate (e.g., the flagstick stuck in the hole-liner or B was distracted and did not see A putt), the stroke is canceled and the ball must be replaced and replayed. Neither A nor B incurs a penalty.

This eliminates all of @iacas' objections as well since nobody on either side is gaining anything.  I don't (yet - I know you guys have answers :)) see how this could be abused.

[drmevo]

37 minutes ago, iacas said:

edited

If they're going to be that douchey, it's better than a penalty isn't it?

35 minutes ago, Phil McGleno said:

They have been writing and modifying rules for a long long time-THey probably have given them a lot of thought. More than anyone will posting here, including me and you @drmevo.

Exactly, they have been modifying rules for a long time, so it's not like there isn't room for improvement.  To basically say "they've already thought of everything" to shut down a rules debate is silly.

Edited to add:  I think @Golfingdad's suggestion above makes a lot of sense.

[Phil McGleno]

11 minutes ago, drmevo said:

Exactly, they have been modifying rules for a long time, so it's not like there isn't room for improvement.  To basically say "they've already thought of everything" to shut down a rules debate is silly.

The point is that they have likely given it more thought and come up with a better rule in the past century of thinking about it than you can in five minutes.-It is not like something happened that presents a new angle they had not thought of before. That is how many rules changes come about these days.-New scenarios.

[drmevo]

12 minutes ago, Phil McGleno said:

The point is that they have likely given it more thought and come up with a better rule in the past century of thinking about it than you can in five minutes.-It is not like something happened that presents a new angle they had not thought of before. That is how many rules changes come about these days.-New scenarios.

Why can't we discuss things just for the sake of discussing them and thinking them through? I've learned a lot about the rules through reading threads like this.  @iacas and others often point out why rules are the way they are and it's helpful to understanding the thought process.  In this case, I can understand the argument for changing the rule.

And with that said, what downside do you see to @Golfingdad's proposed tweak?

[GolfLug]

1 hour ago, Golfingdad said:

For what reason besides the above would somebody ask you to tend the flagstick?

To locate the hole if it is not visible from some reasonable distance. as far as I know.

[iacas]

41 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Why not just tweak Decision 17-3/2 ever so slightly.  It currently reads:

Why not just revise the last paragraph to:

This eliminates all of @iacas' objections as well since nobody on either side is gaining anything.  I don't (yet - I know you guys have answers :)) see how this could be abused.

Because that changes the Decision in such a way that it contradicts the rule itself. It's A's responsibility, having selected someone to attend the flagstick, to make sure they're paying attention and can remove the flagstick in the time constraints given.

And also because the flagstick can be attended by more than the opponent or fellow competitor, so the Decision still doesn't cover everything.

---

Phil's point, though not delicately delivered, is a good one, IMO.

The Rules of Golf have gotten thousands of hours of thought, experimentation, discussion, etc. The odds that anyone is going to come up with a better rule in a few minutes is slim.

That's why so many "rules people," people who appreciate the thousands of hours (tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands…), tend to react like "the rule is fine." It's a huge mountain to climb, and it's unlikely (not impossible) that a better solution is out there with a few minutes of effort.

---

And point of note…

43 minutes ago, iacas said:

See 17-3/2.

I edited that post because my initial response was dumb. I did so fairly promptly, though not promptly enough that some of you got the previous version.

1 minute ago, GolfLug said:

To locate the hole if it is not visible from some reasonable distance. as far as I know.

It also helps with depth perception/distance control.